Tuesday, December 31, 2013

How can you say there are too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers.-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

Photo credit: Facebook

The anti-child attitude that permeates the oppressive Chinese
government has led to a life of daily tragedy for huge swaths of the
country. Women are not permitted to have children freely, and if they violate the country’s one-child policy, they are likely to be subjected to forced abortion, discrimination, oppression, and even death. The attitude against children has led to the twofold problem of wanting the one permitted child to be perfect (and, often, male), which causes epidemic rates of abandonment and neglect among accidental subsequent children, disabled children, female children, and all the rest.

Photo credit: Facebook

The problem is enormous, and it would require a government
transformation to change the nation’s current situation regarding
children. But several organizations are working to make a difference.
One in particular, the Little Flower Projects, reaches out specifically to the country’s abandoned children. Their mission is simple:

Our mission is to provide specialized services to
abandoned children. Recognizing the beauty and dignity of each and
every individual person, we at Little Flower reach out to those who are
rejected, abandoned, deemed as useless, and who have no voice. Our
projects focus on providing special care to abandoned infants, nurturing
the growth and education of older disabled orphans and providing loving
care for children who are dying. Whether by direct care, support, or
education we are making a difference, one child at a time.

Photo credit: Facebook

The organization works through various projects to save, care for,
and protect China’s most vulnerable. They provide hospice care for
orphans who are dying, and consider it a privilege to spend time
alongside the orphans and fill their last days with joy. Little Flower
Projects also provides group educational foster homes, which reach out
to physically disabled orphans and allow them to obtain education and
training. The hope is that, after their time in the educational foster
home with a family environment, the children will be equipped to
function independently as adults.

The organization provides special care to children at their infant
homes, where abandoned babies who have medical complications are
treated. The babies stay in infant homes until they have grown strong
enough to join individual families. Through long-term care, the Little
Flower Projects take in older disabled orphans and keep children who
have no hope of being adopted due to their impairments. Finally, the
organization works to facilitate adoptions, and helps a variety of
special causes, which differ from case-to-case. They can include raising
money for a much-needed surgery, or helping impoverished families with
difficult needs.
The full spectrum of the Little Flower Projects’ work can be found here. Follow the organization on Facebook here.

Sperm donation: when the desires of parents trump the needs of children

Dec. 30, 2013 (PublicDiscourse) - In the new film Delivery Man,
Vince Vaughn plays David Wozniak, a man who discovers that he’s the
biological father of 533 children—all conceived through his anonymous
sperm donations. Now, almost two decades after his “donations” (from
which he netted over $20,000), 142 of those children have filed a
lawsuit against the sperm bank to reveal his identity. They want to know
their biological father, gain access to their medical histories, and
discover their roots.

The film is fictional—but it’s not far from reality. In 2011, the New York Times reported the story of
one donor with 150 confirmed offspring. There have only been a handful
of major studies following children who were conceived via anonymous
gamete donation, yet certain key trends are emerging as they reach
adulthood. Although these adult children have mixed opinions about the
means in which they were conceived and the limits of such technologies,
they’re almost all united in one belief: anonymity should be removed
from the equation.
Readers of Public Discourse are already familiar with Alana S. Newman, founder of the Anonymous Us Project and, most recently, editor of Anonymous Us: A Story Collective on 3rd Party Reproduction. In this volume, Newman compiles over one hundred stories of donor-conceived individuals who, like the kids in Delivery Man, long to know their biological parents.

“While anonymity in reproduction hides the truth,” writes Newman,
“anonymity in storytelling helps reveal it.” Accordingly, these stories
offer a glimpse into the reality faced by many donor-conceived children.
Some contributions are angry, others are conflicted. All, however,
reveal a deep loss. Consider just a few of the sentiments shared within
the volume:

“Who are you to deny me half of my family tree—branches rich and strong
with stories I may never be told? Who are you to give away my heritage,
knowing it will be replaced with something false?”
“I am a human being, yet I was conceived with a technique that had its
origins in animal husbandry. Worst of all, farmers kept better records
of their cattle’s genealogy than assisted reproductive clinics … how
could the doctors, sworn to ‘first do no harm’ create a system where I
now face the pain and loss of my own identity and heritage.”

“As a donor-conceived person, I have a sense of being part of an underclass … Having a child is a privilege not a right.”
There’s also the story of a young donor-conceived adult who was raised
by a single mother. After her mother’s early death, she’s since been
desperately searching for her donor father and potential other siblings
in hopes that she might have some remnants of a family to piece
together. Another young woman tells of her own struggle with infertility
when she and her husband were trying to conceive. After telling her mom
of their difficulties, her mom casually suggests artificial
insemination—informing her for the very first time in her life that this
was the means in which she was brought into the world. Countless other
stories capture the experience of donor-conceived children finding out
their origins after their social father is diagnosed with a major
medical condition—only to be told not to worry because it won’t affect
them, since they’re not actually biologically related. The grief
stemming from the medical difficulties is then compounded by an
unexpected family identity crisis.
The entries included in the Anonymous Us collective aren’t
just limited to the testimonials from donor-conceived children. Stories
from medical providers, sperm and egg donors, and parents who chose to
conceive via this method fill the pages of these raw and emotional
testimonials. While some entries are an effort to justify past
decisions, others speak with great candor about the regrettable outcomes
of such a practice.

One Italian sperm donor reflects on the experience of his own family
life and laments that the children whom he helped bring into this world
won’t be able to have similar memories:
“I have only a sister, but many, many cousins … and every time I meet
them and all the relatives, we love to talk about similarities in the
features, the body, the way we talk and move, because this gives us a
stronger sense of identity and it is beautiful to have such a 'big
family' … I hope this little story can help people in learning from the
mistakes of the past.”
In another entry, a former egg donor regrets the fact that she’ll never
be able to meet her son or daughter, admitting that she only
participated in the practice because of the lucrative financial
incentives attached to selling her eggs: “I don’t even remember what I
spent the money on,” she writes. “Debt, dresses, and dinners probably.
I’d give you $10,000 this very second to meet my kid. Biggest oops of my
life.”
In the United States, there’s an open and unregulated market for gamete
donation. Unlike Canada and most European countries, which limit the
number of times a man can sell his sperm and have mandatory database
registries where donor children can access their biological parents'
medical histories, the United States enforces no such regulations. This
lack of regulation is due, in large part, to legislators’ failure to
listen to the voices of donor-conceived children. “How can we as a
nation make wise decisions about family structure, third-party
reproduction, and gamete donation,” asks Newman, “without the
participation of and insights from those who have been most directly
affected by these practices?”
Just how many donor-conceived children are born each year is anyone’s
guess, due to negligible tracking and regulation. At a recent conference
for fertility-industry attorneys, I listened to a prominent children’s
psychologist (who favors the practice of third-party reproduction) speak
about the potential psychological issues donor-conceived children might
face. In a moment of candor, she admitted, “We never thought about the
future families. We only set out to fix the infertility.”
And this is precisely the problem with donor conception: the desires of the parents always trump the needs of the children.

The stories in the Anonymous Us Project and Delivery Man demonstrate
the real suffering and loss felt by donor-conceived children. Yet, in
considering the problem of infertility, we also encounter countless
couples who experience great distress and grief as a result of their
inability to conceive. Infertility is a deeply painful and often
isolating experience for millions of couples. The CDCestimates that
10 percent of women trying to conceive are infertile; hence the
increasingly common decision to pursue assisted reproduction. This drive
to have children is understandable; social science research reveals that
the presence of children in a marriage leads to greater happiness,
increased financial security, and a lower likelihood of divorce.

We must acknowledge the painful truth that, as infertile couples seek
to remedy their suffering through third-party reproduction, they are
unwittingly inflicting pain on their future children. Eventually, those
children must wrestle with the circumstances surrounding their
conception. In aiming to satisfy their very natural desire for
offspring, infertile couples go to great lengths to create children who
are destined to experience complex crises of identity and purpose.
This transgenerational suffering precipitated by the experience of
infertility is one that must be met with compassion, to be sure. Yet we
must also offer a corrective that acknowledges the limits of desire and
love.

Rather than supporting an inward focus on one’s own pain and loss from
infertility, we ought to encourage infertile couples to give deep
consideration to the suffering that children conceived from these
technologies may face. Moreover, rather than privileging one’s own
desire for a child as the ultimate goal, we must encourage a preemptive compassion and empathy that should motivate infertile couples to refrain from pursuing such means.

In one of the most revealing entries of the Anonymous Us collective,
a former sperm donor criticizes the industry he profited from: “I now
realize I was wrong. This whole system is wrong. Please forgive me, but I
am not your father, nor did I ever intend to be.” Similarly, in one of
the scenes from Delivery Man, when one of the donor children
discovers that Wozniak is his biological father, the son seeks to spend
time with him. Annoyed by this prospect, Wozniak brushes the kid off,
telling him that he has a real family to attend to.

Infertile parents who desperately seek a child might see anonymous egg
or sperm donation as an imperfect, though still acceptable, solution to
their fertility difficulties. But as the stories in the Anonymous Us collective reveal, for the children conceived through these technologies, the difficulties are just beginning.

Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

Dec. 29, 2013 (Americanthinker.com) - Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me. Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.
Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and
foolish. We knew this. But some conservatives who should know better
are truly pathetic. A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say
that Phil Robertson should have been suspended. Pusillanimous
obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.

A bunch of people on the left (see here and here)
called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did. Yet a bunch of people on the
right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's
defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about
homosexuality.

In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.
I won't hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD's website and seek out
their "commentator accountability project," you will find my name. This
is GLAAD's blacklist. Within hours of GLAAD's publication of my
addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite
society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along
with dozens of other high officials in California, with the
announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this
list, I would never get a direct interview in the United
States. (Whoever "they" are, they made good on the threat, because when
I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the
only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other
panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)
According to the press release sent to my
university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce
me as an "anti-gay activist" certified by GLAAD as a bigot. When I read
the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true -- would
media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified
as "anti-gay" by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered. Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera,
since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has
invited me on its show in the United States. In-depth interviews with
me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number
of other nations. In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the
American Family Association and Frank Sontag's "Faith and Reason" show
in Los Angeles have interviewed me. And I'd been interviewed, prior to
the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and
NPR, as well as a number of newspapers. Since GLAAD's blacklisting,
none.
Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at
universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and
give speeches. Three were working with me to set up dates. Since
GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Those who had discussed this with me said
point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD. There are other people on the watch list
-- Maggie Gallagher, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, all of whom I
respect and all of whom make regular appearances on television. When
GLAAD excommunicates them, there might be some hurt feelings, but it
isn't quite the fatwa that it was for me. These other traditionalist
spokespeople have enjoyed some advantages: they are not part of the gay
community themselves, and they belong to well-established conservative
groups such as the Heritage Foundation. So I surmise that for them,
being blacklisted by GLAAD isn't really the end of the world.

Being blacklisted by GLAAD was the end of my world. (It just so
happens I entered a new, happier one, but that doesn't take away from
the terror caused by their omerta.) Even though I wrote The Colorful Conservative,
I am too colorful for right-wing think-tanks, too vulgar for Beltway
Republicans, too much a fan of Sarah Palin for the Big Boys down in
D.C. I'm too queer for the legit crowd, and GLAAD basically put the
word out to the queers not to talk to me anymore. Old friends and even
some family members took GLAAD's marching orders and have summarily cut
me out of their lives. And when I mean cut me out, I mean we will never
be in the same room again. One person very close to me, who works in
the entertainment industry, was accosted at a dinner and told in no
uncertain terms that if he didn't join in denouncing me, he'd have
difficulty finding work. I was less important than his shot at getting
better contracts -- so gosh, I miss him.

I have only my tenure, my experiences, and my blog. I'm not rich. I'm
not white. I'm not straight. I was raised by a lesbian and had to
climb up to the humble perch where I am now, out of the lowest and
smelliest swamps of gay America. I was cursed with a lisp when I was
young and never won respect for my writing as an adult. Everything has
always been a battle, just to survive -- as it is for most gays outside
the Beltway, by the way. Somehow, amid the ravages of AIDS,
homophobia, racism, class snobbery, bullying, and every possible
disadvantage you can name (save perhaps sexism), I managed to make
myself a writer, learn eight languages, write books, form a family, find
a relationship with God, and last, get tenure. It's a rare professor
who can say he survived a tenure review with as many adversaries as mine
involved -- which allows me the small pride of saying that as modest a
place as CSU Northridge is, I really earned my keep. The slightest blemish on my file would have sent me to the almshouse.

None of these difficulties was quite like what happened with
GLAAD. Though I am part of the LGBT community, I was deemed a
"non-person," someone invisible. It's easy to see why it was necessary,
in a Machiavellian sense, for GLAAD to do this in 2013. They have been
using the image of "gay families" and "children of gay couples" to
maximum advantage -- in fact, in the latest iteration of GLAAD's duel
with Phil Robertson, GLAAD wants him to sit down and talk to "gay
families." I am certain this will involve dragging some hapless child
who doesn't want to be there into a confab, where overbearing gay
parents use the kid as a human shield.

America doesn't know that this is part of same-sex parenting, because Americans have been blocked from hearing from me, Dawn Stefanowicz, Jean-Dominique Bunel, "Janna," Manuel Half, Rivka Edelman, and the blogger known as "the Bigot"
-- just some of the many people I've come to know over the last year
and a half, who have the human stories to dispel the myth that all is
well with "gay families." This scares the crap out of people at
GLAAD. It scares the crap out of them that I'm a professor and fluent
enough in the way research works to know that the "consensus" on
same-sex parenting is a fraud. It
scares the crap out of them that I have a scholarly record in
African-American Studies and queer readings of Thoreau and Whitman, so
they can't write me off as a wacko, unwashed homophobe.
It scares the crap out of them that I know they're lying, and if people had a chance to hear me, they'd know, too.
So it's easier to engage in a blackout: make a few phone calls, send out some press releases, marshal the usual success stories, trot out the starry-eyed youths with the "I Love My Two Dads" signs, and cue up some home videos of lesbian moms with toddlers. Give them some of the razzle dazzle.
GLAAD is hoping that the current surge of anger over Phil Robertson will begin and end with Duck Dynasty,
and then the rest of us who have been erased and whose lives have been
destroyed by this totalitarian organization can be out of the way
again. Broom, meet rug -- sweep the human waste underneath, march on to
the next court case, and proclaim victory.
There's only one way that GLAAD will come out of this kerfuffle
unscathed -- if you, the conservatives of America, let them. Please
don't. This is much bigger than one reality show.Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.Re-published with permission from American Thinker

Courts: Jahi McMath will stay on ventilator until January 7

Last
week, an Alameda county court in California determined that Jahi
McMath, a teen who was declared “brain dead” after a botched tonsil
surgery, could be taken off of her ventilator on Monday, December 30, in
accordance with the hospital’s wishes. McMath’s family has resisted
every effort by the hospital to take ventilator support away from Jahi
after a team at the hospital caused Jahi to slip into a state of brain
death.
The family’s wishes are not being honored, however, and the
children’s hospital where Jahi is being held will not even allow the
family to transfer Jahi to a facility that would allow her to stay on a
ventilator. The order that Jahi’s ventilator be removed on December 30th
was extended at the last moment after the family’s attorney appealed
to the judge to keep Jahi alive longer. According to the LA Times:

The family had therefore filed a new complaint in federal
court and also appealed to Alameda County Superior Court to extend its
temporary restraining order, the Oakland Tribune reported.
The court order keeping Jahi on a ventilator at Children’s Hospital
Oakland was due to expire at 5 p.m. Monday. As the deadline drew
closer Monday afternoon, local media reported that a judge had extended
the deadline until Jan. 7.

There is controversy surrounding definitions of “brain death,” which
have been modified in recent years (possibly in the interests of organ
harvesting, which requires some state of life; organs taken from a
corpse are essentially useless). The Uniform Determination of Death Act,
or UDDA, was created in the 1980s and has been adopted by most states
as the acceptable way to determine whether a person is dead. The Act
defines “death” as a cessation of brain function, which means that
people whose hearts are beating and who are breathing with the
assistance of a ventilator can ethically have their organs harvested
because, according to the newer definition, a person is “dead” when
their brain ceases to show activity on standard neurological
tests. Pro-life physician Dr. Paul Byrne, an expert on the subject, said,

The ventilator won’t work on a corpse. In a corpse, the
ventilator pushes the air in, but it won’t come out. Just the living
person pushes the air out.

In Jahi’s case, brain dead actually means a declaration of “death by neurological criteria,” one
of the two legal methods for declaring the bona fide death of a human
being. To be declared dead by neurological criteria does not mean there
are no brain cells remaining alive. Rather, it means that medical tests,
observation of the patient post injury, and history of the case
demonstrate that the patient’s brain and each of its constituent parts have irreversiblyceased to function as a brain. As one doctor told me, it is as if the patient was functionally decapitated.

Smith acknowledges that, because a person who has been declared brain dead is legally dead,
there is not a legal right to keep their bodies on life support.
But Jahi is not a corpse, and her family’s wishes are to allow her to
continue to live on their own terms. We’ll be following this case
closely and awaiting the outcome of the McMath family’s battle for Jahi.

Pregnant nurse chooses baby’s health over flu shot, gets fired

In a Lancaster, PA hospital choosing to protect your unborn child
is not a valid reason for exemption from a flu shot, which isn’t even
guaranteed to protect against the flu.
Dreonna Breton, 29, a nurse at Horizons Healthcare Services in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, is pregnant. Because of having two previous
miscarriages, she consulted with her doctor and decide to apply for an
exemption to get a flu shot, Fluzone, mandated by her employer and was
fired for that refusal.Penn Live reports that
Breton refused the shot after researching the vaccine and making the
choice that her baby’s health, especially in light of her miscarriage
history, was more important than the iffy vaccine.

“It would be a false statement to say the flu vaccine is
known to be safe during pregnancy. I have lost my job, one that I love
and am good at, because I chose to do what I believe is best for my
baby.”

In a culture of mantras of choice, the decision by the hospital is disturbing. CNN reports:

“The mother of one submitted letters from her
obstetrician and primary care doctor supporting her decision, but she
was told that she would be fired on December 17 if she did not receive
the vaccine before then.
“Horizons Healthcare Services spokesman Alan Peterson told CNN affiliate WPVI that it’s unconscionable for a health care worker not to be immunized and that pregnant women are more susceptible to the flu.”

Dr. Peterson, seems to think that making Breton’s choice for her on
the health of her baby is appropriate, further showing that the culture
of choice applies more frequently when the choice is the one. His
comments, implying a mother has a lack of conscience for choosing not to
take a chance with a drug unproven on pregnancies is a disturbing
commentary on the lack of choice that actually exists in a co-called
pro-choice culture.

Exemptions to the flu vaccine are allowed, but Breton’s was denied. According to Penn Live,
when Breton filed for an exemption, she included a doctor’s note which
stated, “In my view getting the flu shot would significantly and
negatively impact her health because of the increased fear and anxiety
it would create as well as the emotional impact it could cause if she
does miscarry again.” But even a medical professional’s opinion was not
enough to prevent her firing.
Despite Breton’s offer to wear a mask on the job, a common precaution
allowed in exemptions, the hospital refused her this option. Penn Live continues:

“Sanofi Pasteur is the maker of Fluzone, one of the
brands with a packaging insert stating that the impact on a pregnant
woman and her fetus are unknown.
Donna Cary, a spokeswoman, attributed that to the fact that results
of clinical studies involving pregnant women weren’t included in the
research presented decades ago when flu vaccine received government
approval.
Because of that, flu vaccine manufacturers can’t state that it’s safe for pregnant women, she said.
However, there is a registry of negative impacts of flu vaccine, and
nothing in that registry has prompted the groups such as the CDC to
conclude that flu vaccine poses a danger for pregnant women, she said.”

Breton told CNN, “I know that the CDC says to get it, and that’s
fine, but it was our choice to avoid the flu vaccine and the unknowns
that come with that.”
It seems that in the case of a woman who is also a health
professional and consulted with her doctor to make a personal decision,
that the hospital could have taken a myriad of other avenues besides
firing Breton. Besides the mask, which is a common way to deal with
exemptions, the hospital could have assigned her administrative duties,
or temporarily reassigned her to an area where she would not endanger
patients if she did happen to get the flu. Instead, they refused
Breton’s choice to care for her unborn child and made an example of her.

What is truly unconscionable is firing a woman who chooses to protect
her unborn child. Sadly, the pro-choice mentality seems to favor
abortion choices over choices to protect babies. It should be a mother’s
choice, regardless of her workplace, to make the best decision she can
to help her baby live.
After years of employment, Breton should be allowed other options
besides firing. This wasn’t an either/or decision, but the hospital has
made it one, and that’s a sad statement on health care. Breton’s
attitude clearly conveys that not even a job is worth the life of her
baby. And that is a decision that should be honored, not result in
losing a job.

Stories investigate ObamaCare’s higher costs,
lower benefits; as 2013 ends, clear that many more Americas will have
lost their insurance than signed up for ObamaCare

By Dave AndruskoA
few thoughts today and a few more tomorrow as we are just hours away
from when the impact of ObamaCare really hits the American
populous—January 1, 2014.
* From “That Health Care Law, By the Numbers,” by the Associated Press’s Calvin Woodward

“4 million-plus: People whose
individual plans were canceled because the plans didn’t measure up under
the law [ObamaCare]. The government changed rules to allow substandard
plans to exist for another year; it’s not known how many canceled
policies will be revived. Another rules change allowed cancellation
victims to sign up for bare-bones catastrophic coverage.

How many have signed up, through HealthCare.gov and the state health
exchanges? Up to but no more than 2 million. That’s the “good news,”
according to Jim Geraghty.
The bad news? “That puts them at about 26 percent of their
enrollment goal of 7 million, with half the enrollment period passed.”
(And, of course, like all Obama numbers always, there will be a later
revision of the number that has supposed signed up–downward.)
Conclusion? “[W]e’re still ending 2013 with more people having lost their insurance than gained it,” Geraghty reminds us.

* We know from multiple stories (including nrlc.cc/1h9MoMX and nrlc.cc/1h9MtjM)
that Millennials—18-29—are turning on Obama and on ObamaCare. “57
percent of millennials disapprove of Obamacare, with 40 percent saying
it will worsen their quality of care and a majority believing it will
drive up costs. Only 18 percent say Obamacare will improve their care.
Among 18-to-29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than
one-third say they’re likely to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges,”
according to a survey by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.
* One more. I have relatives who are the owners of small businesses.
In the last month, media outlets are beginning to understand what they
have known since 2010: the costs of ObamaCare for them are prohibitive.
NBC News did an investigative piece on the effects on workers at one
auto dealership. The blogger Allahpundit captured what is taking place:

“A sneak preview at America 2014 from
the Ghost of Christmas Future. It’s not the premiums that are killing
these people, although those are higher in some cases too. It’s the
out-of-pocket costs. The media coverage of O-Care has paid less
attention to those for the simple reason that no one’s actually incurred
them yet. That’ll change on Thursday.”

As is the case over and over again, the company’s existing insurance
policy was cancelled because it didn’t meet the ObamaCare requirements.
It would have cost the auto dealership almost 50% more to have kept
deductibles and out-of-pocket costs at the 2012 levels, according to
insurance broker Michael Harp, quoted in the NBC News story. So the
company gave their workers a set amount of money from which they could
either not get insurance (and pay a penalty) or get a policy through the
healthcare exchanges.

The most significant conclusion Harp drew?

“He said the biggest surprise to him
in how the law impacts small business clients is ‘how many people are
losers versus winners. … There are some people who do come out ahead,
but I would say the overwhelming majority, they’re paying much higher
rates and they have lower benefits.’”

In addition

“Harp says what is happening at this
dealership is representative of the other small businesses he deals
with. Businesses with 50 or fewer employees currently provide health
insurance to about 17 million U.S. workers, according to the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners.”

And, oh by the way, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean appeared on Fox
News Sunday yesterday. While he predicted that in the end ObamaCare
“will work,” he also acknowledged “that Obamacare would suffer
additional setbacks as it continues rolling out next year,” according to
The Hill newspaper.

Dean simply reiterated what everybody knows—the Obama administration
is having major problems convincing younger, healthier people to sign
up. Who is? “The data does show that less healthy people are signing
up,” Dean said. “Younger people are signing up less frequently than
hoped.”

Monday, December 30, 2013

Three-year-old boy collects over 900 gifts for fellow hospitalized children

All life is precious and worthy of support and recognition — and a
story out of Houston, Texas demonstrates that even a three-year-old
little boy can instinctively know that. Bennett Nester, who was
diagnosed with a brain tumor own in 2011, received a teddy bear in the
early stages of his treatment. His mother says that he wouldn’t let it
out of his sight; somehow, the small token from a stranger helped to
ease the trauma and pain that he was going through.

Today, Bennett — barely a tot himself — spends time making sure that
other children like himself receive a similar well wish as they fight
their battle against sickness and disease. For the last two years,
Bennett has collected hundreds of teddy bears this purpose — nine
hundred just this year alone. The initiative is called “Bennett’s Bears.”

A Vietnam veteran who chose not to be identified to the media noticed
Bennett’s heroism in the face of his own battle against illness, and
his selflessness in focusing on other children who were going through
the same thing, and decided to give Bennett his own Bronze Star from the
war. He told Bennett that he could keep it as long as he promised to
brave his medical battle like a real hero– a promise that little Bennett
seems to have no trouble living up to.

Bennett isn’t preoccupied with his illness; he spends plenty of time
playing with his train set and spending time with his mommy. His mom says
that Bennett is going through things that she “cannot even imagine,”
but she is grateful for the Vietnam soldier who recognized the hero in
her son.

Life on GLAAD’s Blacklist

Dec. 29, 2013 (Americanthinker.com) - Readers will have to forgive me for sounding angry, but the recent news involving GLAAD has enraged me. Mark Steyn's most recent piece in National Review sums up some of the worst aspects of the epic saga known as GLAAD v. Duck Dynasty.

Steyn resonates with me on one key point: yes, GLAAD is ridiculous and
foolish. We knew this. But some conservatives who should know better
are truly pathetic. A National Review editor scolds Steyn for being "puerile," while people on Fox News say
that Phil Robertson should have been suspended. Pusillanimous
obeisance to false ideology isn't exclusive to left or right.
A bunch of people on the left (see here and here)
called GLAAD out, and I'm glad they did. Yet a bunch of people on the
right are still terrified of GLAAD, or else actually believe that it's
defamation to say negative things or think negative thoughts about
homosexuality.

In case you don't know the full extent of GLAAD's fascism, let me tell you what GLAAD did to me.
I won't hyperlink this, but if you go to GLAAD's website and seek out
their "commentator accountability project," you will find my name. This
is GLAAD's blacklist. Within hours of GLAAD's publication of my
addition to the list, which amounts to an excommunication from polite
society, an e-mail was sent to the president of my university, along
with dozens of other high officials in California, with the
announcement: ROBERT OSCAR LOPEZ PLACED ON GLAAD WATCH LIST

The e-mail stated clearly that as a result of my being placed on this
list, I would never get a direct interview in the United
States. (Whoever "they" are, they made good on the threat, because when
I was brought onto Al Jazeera, they made sure that I was the
only one critical of gay adoption, versus two hosts and two other
panelists who were for it, and the host cut my microphone.)
According to the press release sent to my
university, any media outlet introducing me would be bound to introduce
me as an "anti-gay activist" certified by GLAAD as a bigot. When I read
the claims of this e-mail, I wondered if this would be true -- would
media in the United States really introduce me by saying I was certified
as "anti-gay" by GLAAD?

Well, the answer to that question remains mostly unanswered. Aside from that one fling on Al Jazeera,
since GLAAD placed me on their blacklist, no secular media outlet has
invited me on its show in the United States. In-depth interviews with
me have been broadcast in Chile, Russia, France, Ireland, and a number
of other nations. In the United States, Christian broadcasters like the
American Family Association and Frank Sontag's "Faith and Reason" show
in Los Angeles have interviewed me. And I'd been interviewed, prior to
the GLAAD blacklisting, by Minnesota affiliates of NBC, CBS, Fox, and
NPR, as well as a number of newspapers. Since GLAAD's blacklisting,
none.
Prior to GLAAD's blacklisting, I had received calls from people at
universities discussing their interest in having me come to campus and
give speeches. Three were working with me to set up dates. Since
GLAAD's blacklisting, none. Those who had discussed this with me said
point-blank that their superiors did not want to create controversy.

That is the power of GLAAD. There are other people on the watch list
-- Maggie Gallagher, Ryan Anderson, and Robert George, all of whom I
respect and all of whom make regular appearances on television. When
GLAAD excommunicates them, there might be some hurt feelings, but it
isn't quite the fatwa that it was for me. These other traditionalist
spokespeople have enjoyed some advantages: they are not part of the gay
community themselves, and they belong to well-established conservative
groups such as the Heritage Foundation. So I surmise that for them,
being blacklisted by GLAAD isn't really the end of the world.

Being blacklisted by GLAAD was the end of my world. (It just so
happens I entered a new, happier one, but that doesn't take away from
the terror caused by their omerta.) Even though I wrote The Colorful Conservative,
I am too colorful for right-wing think-tanks, too vulgar for Beltway
Republicans, too much a fan of Sarah Palin for the Big Boys down in
D.C. I'm too queer for the legit crowd, and GLAAD basically put the
word out to the queers not to talk to me anymore. Old friends and even
some family members took GLAAD's marching orders and have summarily cut
me out of their lives. And when I mean cut me out, I mean we will never
be in the same room again. One person very close to me, who works in
the entertainment industry, was accosted at a dinner and told in no
uncertain terms that if he didn't join in denouncing me, he'd have
difficulty finding work. I was less important than his shot at getting
better contracts -- so gosh, I miss him.

I have only my tenure, my experiences, and my blog. I'm not rich. I'm
not white. I'm not straight. I was raised by a lesbian and had to
climb up to the humble perch where I am now, out of the lowest and
smelliest swamps of gay America. I was cursed with a lisp when I was
young and never won respect for my writing as an adult. Everything has
always been a battle, just to survive -- as it is for most gays outside
the Beltway, by the way. Somehow, amid the ravages of AIDS,
homophobia, racism, class snobbery, bullying, and every possible
disadvantage you can name (save perhaps sexism), I managed to make
myself a writer, learn eight languages, write books, form a family, find
a relationship with God, and last, get tenure. It's a rare professor
who can say he survived a tenure review with as many adversaries as mine
involved -- which allows me the small pride of saying that as modest a
place as CSU Northridge is, I really earned my keep. The slightest blemish on my file would have sent me to the almshouse.

None of these difficulties was quite like what happened with
GLAAD. Though I am part of the LGBT community, I was deemed a
"non-person," someone invisible. It's easy to see why it was necessary,
in a Machiavellian sense, for GLAAD to do this in 2013. They have been
using the image of "gay families" and "children of gay couples" to
maximum advantage -- in fact, in the latest iteration of GLAAD's duel
with Phil Robertson, GLAAD wants him to sit down and talk to "gay
families." I am certain this will involve dragging some hapless child
who doesn't want to be there into a confab, where overbearing gay
parents use the kid as a human shield.

America doesn't know that this is part of same-sex parenting, because Americans have been blocked from hearing from me, Dawn Stefanowicz, Jean-Dominique Bunel, "Janna," Manuel Half, Rivka Edelman, and the blogger known as "the Bigot"
-- just some of the many people I've come to know over the last year
and a half, who have the human stories to dispel the myth that all is
well with "gay families." This scares the crap out of people at
GLAAD. It scares the crap out of them that I'm a professor and fluent
enough in the way research works to know that the "consensus" on
same-sex parenting is a fraud. It
scares the crap out of them that I have a scholarly record in
African-American Studies and queer readings of Thoreau and Whitman, so
they can't write me off as a wacko, unwashed homophobe.

It scares the crap out of them that I know they're lying, and if people had a chance to hear me, they'd know, too.
So it's easier to engage in a blackout: make a few phone calls, send out some press releases, marshal the usual success stories, trot out the starry-eyed youths with the "I Love My Two Dads" signs, and cue up some home videos of lesbian moms with toddlers. Give them some of the razzle dazzle.
GLAAD is hoping that the current surge of anger over Phil Robertson will begin and end with Duck Dynasty,
and then the rest of us who have been erased and whose lives have been
destroyed by this totalitarian organization can be out of the way
again. Broom, meet rug -- sweep the human waste underneath, march on to
the next court case, and proclaim victory.
There's only one way that GLAAD will come out of this kerfuffle
unscathed -- if you, the conservatives of America, let them. Please
don't. This is much bigger than one reality show.

Robert Oscar Lopez edits English Manif.Re-published with permission from American Thinker

Hugged by a Hobby Lobby employee

I’m in Texas for the holidays. My fiance and I came here to spend
Christmas with one of his dear childhood friends. It’s been a joy to get
away from the snowy New England streets and relax under the Texas sun.
In the past I’ve visited Houston and Dallas to participate in prayer
meetings focused on ending abortion. One of my favorite memories of
Texas was the bus trip I took from Atlanta to Houston to pray in front
of the largest abortion clinic in the nation. From those prayer meetings
to Texas’s recent ban on abortion after twenty weeks, I’m proud of the
way many in the state have engaged themselves in the pro-life cause.

Earlier I was driving around Rockwall in a friends pick up truck
looking for a late Christmas present. I asked the friend to take me to
Target and he gladly obliged. On the way to the store, we passed a Hobby Lobby.
The big bright orange letters on the brown store put a smile on my
face. I live in Connecticut, a state that’s sadly deprived of Hobby
Lobby. I’ve been following Hobby Lobby’s court case that’s centered
around their refusal to provide insurance coverage for their employees
to get forms of birth control that could cause abortions.

The Christian corporation already provides
sixteen forms of birth control for their employees. The founders moral
stand and strong faith prevents them from providing any form of birth
control that can destroy the gift of life. Hobby Lobby’s case should be
decided by the Supreme Court this summer. Those who are following this
case know it’s about more than contraceptives.

This is a case about religious freedom, the right for corporations to
follow their faith and the need for limited governmental involvement in
those decisions making. By refusing to pay for contraceptive in Obama
Care Hobby Lobby is putting principle before profit and faith before
financial gain. In doing so they are taking a big risk. If they lose the
case they can be fined 1.3 million dollars a day for refusing to go
along with the Affordable Health Care Act.

When I saw the Hobby Lobby store, I knew I had to support them. It
didn’t really matter what I bought. I just wanted to give my money to a
company that is standing for life. As I walked through the aisles I was
tempted to buy almost everything I saw. I’ll admit it’s an added benefit
that the store has really cute stuff.

As I was checking out of the store I began a conversation with my
sales clerk Natalie. Natalie was a young women, likely in her early
twenties. I asked her if she knew about the Supreme Court case and what
she thought about it. To my delight Natalie said Hobby Lobby’s stand on
abortion was what made her want to work for the organization. In her
interview she told them she was pro-life and shared her support for
their decision regarding birth control. Along with working at Hobby
Lobby Natalie also helps women facing crisis pregnancies. She told me
about an organization she’s worked with called ‘Gabriel Project‘ that connects pregnant women with trained mentors to guide them through their pregnancy.

I told Natalie that I wrote for Live Action News and when I did she
beamed. She told me she read our news blog and said she read a story
about the Hobby Lobby case on our site. I let Natalie know I survived an
abortion and thanked her for standing for life. Natalie looked at me
with a glowing face and asked if she could give me a hug. When I said
yes she came from behind her counter, opened up and arms wide and
squeezed me. She thanked me for being a voice for life.
It’s not everyday I buy a gift and receive much more than what I
purchased. Today I caught a glimpse of faith in action. A young woman
who told me that even if Hobby Lobby lost their case, shut down and she
lost her job, she wouldn’t regret working for a company with strong
principles. Along with getting a Christmas gift I bought a beautiful
wall plaque that says, ” And we know that in all things God works
together for the good of those who love Him, who have been called
according to their purpose, Romans 8:28.”

When I look at that verse on my wall I’ll remember my trip to the
Hobby Lobby store in Rockwall and Natalie’s passion for life. I’ll
continue to pray that God works all things together for good for Hobby
Lobby and their Supreme court case.

Loving Them Both

By Sarah TerzoIn
an article in the American Medical News (Diane M Gianelli, “Abortion
Providers Share Inner Conflicts,” American Medical News, July 12, 1993),
a counselor at a Dallas abortion clinic talked about how she deals with
the stress of doing her job. In her own words:

“This may sound like repression:
however, it does work for me. When I find myself identifying with the
fetus, and I think the larger it gets, that’s normal… then I think it’s
okay to consciously decide to remind ourselves to identify with the
woman. The external criteria of viability really isn’t what it’s about.
It’s an unwanted pregnancy and that’s the bottom line.”

This clinic worker is struggling with her conscience. Deep down, I
suspect that she knows that the “fetuses” her clinic aborts are actually
babies. You don’t “identify with” tissue, products of conception, or
collections of cells. You identify with human beings. This clinic worker
is struggling to silence her conscience, which tells her that these
babies are more than just tissue or uterine growths. They are people. As
the developing child grows bigger and begins to look more and more like
a newborn, it becomes harder and harder to deny his or her humanity.
This forces the clinic worker to rationalize what she is involved in. In
order to cope, she blocks out the reality of the child and focuses only
on the woman as her patient, making the woman her only concern.
Pro-choice arguments almost always focus solely on the woman involved in the pregnancy. The baby is completely disregarded.

The pro-life movement, on the other hand, is at its best when
pro-lifers are concerned about both the child and the mother. Groups
like Silent No More and countless post-abortion support groups and
organizations exist to help women cope with their past abortions. Crisis
pregnancy centers, which outnumber abortion clinics, help women through
their pregnancies and try to meet their needs. More and more, it’s
becoming clear that women are physically and psychologically harmed by
abortion. In opposing abortion, pro-lifers are not simply helping the
baby – they are helping the mother as well. It is important that we do
not deny that there are two people involved in each pregnancy – the
woman, and her unborn baby. Both are important. Both require our support
and compassion.

It is important that we never allow ourselves to see only the baby
and disregard the woman who also needs our help and support. It is of
course the baby whose life is at stake – but the woman obviously has a
pivotal role and should never be forgotten.

Pro-lifers are here to support both people involved in the pregnancy. We don’t exclude either one from our help and care.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Irish Health Minister James Reilly signs order to commence legalized killing of the unborn from January 1st

By Pat Buckley, European Life Network

James Reilly, Minister for Health

According to the Irish Independent, Irish health Minister Dr. James
Reilly has signed the order to bring the controversial abortion law into
operation from January 1 2014, a day that go down in infamy.

“The Protection of Life During Pregnancy act” was passed by the
Oireachtas consisting of both houses of the Irish Parliament last July
and signed into law by President Michael D Higgins. But it required a
commencement order from Dr. Reilly to take effect.
It is understood that the commencement of the law was due to the need
to publish regulations. The independent however reports that the delay
occurred in order to establish a review panel to deal with applications
for termination of pregnancy.

This could be more accurately described as termination of unborn babies’ lives
In what is clearly an assault on their right to conscientious
objection, 25 hospitals in the State have been listed to carry out
abortions, irrespective of whether medical personnel are willing to do
so or not.

By Lauren EnriquezIn a moving video,
a young mother shares the story of finding herself pregnant at just
sixteen years old. Darby explains taking the at-home pregnancy test and
being in a state of disbelief, almost as if the positive test were a
joke. She shares:

“I didn’t really believe it was real
still. You’re kind of, ‘haha, this is funny, good joke.’ But then I went
into the doctor’s office to get the official ‘yes, you are for sure
pregnant.’ That was when the tears kind of came flooding in and the
emotions were suddenly heightened.”

Darby knew she had three options: parenting, adoption, and abortion.
Her doctor told her that she had seen many women who ended up regretting
their abortions, but not once have I ever met a single mother who has
ever regretted having their baby. Darby didn’t know what to do. After a
few weeks she was leaning towards abortion, and she was inclined to
believe the lies of the abortion industry, which said her baby was just a
mass of cells and not a human.

But Darby ultimately decided against abortion and chose life for her son.

“It’s pretty amazing that you can
love someone so little, so much. I just can’t imagine not having him
here with me today, and what I would be doing if he wasn’t in my life
right now. I think I’d be very lost and wondering this November, ‘where
was my baby?’ Life is a wonderful gift. We can never take it for granted
or put ourselves in a position where we can be the controllers of
life.”

Insane Conversations – talking to children about euthanasia

By Paul Russell, founder, HOPE Australia.If
Belgium continues on its reckless path towards child euthanasia, as
seems likely, what will the conversations look like that precedes the
killing of a child?
Let’s assume for the sake of this exploration that the protocols and
so-called safeguards will always be adhered to. There’s plenty of
evidence to doubt that this will occur; that observance will deteriorate
over time. But, initially at least (and at least because of initial
public scrutiny), we can assume proper regard for the new law.
So, how does the conversation begin? We know that the child must ask
for euthanasia and that an assessment of the child’s ability to
comprehend what he or she is asking for must be tested and attested to.
So what is it that would prompt a child to ask?

There would be some need here for an exchange of information. Perhaps
there’s a leaflet outlining the child’s rights. Perhaps it’s part of an
informal discussion with the child about his or her prognosis and
medical treatment options. Whichever, it would not be a matter of an
‘unknown, unknown’. By some method at some time the child would have
need to be made aware of the euthanasia option.
So the edict that ‘the child must ask for it’, which suggests
initiative on the part of the child, is likely never to be entirely the
case. Not convinced? Think about why it would be that the specialist
medical practitioner or the parents would come to a point where they
thought it necessary to tell the child (or to remind the child) about
euthanasia as an option. The very act of saying as much is ‘loading the
gun’.

Such information is loaded with any number of possible undercurrents
of thought which, even if explained away by the doctor or parent, may
have the reverse effect of actually highlighting them.
The inferences abound – all leading to any number of further subtexts – real or imagined:

Are they saying that I should take the euthanasia option?

Are they saying that my life is hopeless and not worth the living?

Are they saying that they (the parents) just can’t take it anymore?

Are they telling me that euthanasia is a heroic option?

Are they saying that there’s no point to my life?

Are they telling me that I’ve suffered enough?

How else is a child to interpret this information? If the parents
didn’t want the euthanasia option and wouldn’t agree to co-sign any
request, why would they add to the anguish by telling the child? But
they may be forced to do so under some sort of quasi-rights protocol.
After all, if it is a legal and legitimate option, could they deny such
information?
And what about the doctor? He or she may also be bound by some
protocol to advise the patient. Is he or she, in doing so, making a
preliminary judgment about the child’s capacity to make such a decision?
Would he or she be likely to have to first ask the parents if he or she
can inform the child patient?
This is not a values-neutral option, like choosing dessert or a
movie. All of us, even if we sought a second medical opinion on a
diagnosis or possible treatments, take a doctor’s suggestions as
considered professional opinion. This will be no different. Such advice
is loaded with moral considerations.
In all of the above we would be considering a situation where a child
was probably already in a hospital or hospice situation and at an
advanced stage of progression of his or her condition. But there’s no
reason to expect that this will be the stage at which the euthanasia
discussion is introduced.
In The Netherlands, and likely in Belgium also, we know that, for
adults, the discussion about euthanasia is not seen as a ‘last resort’
option when all else fails, but, rather, is often introduced at or
shortly after diagnosis in a manner that some have called an ‘early
intervention’. There’s no reason to suppose it would be any different
for a child.
We know also that ‘suffering’ is broadly interpreted to include
existential suffering – even in anticipation of later difficulties as
the disease or condition progresses. It has been observed that the
suffering of the parents is also a consideration. Could this also be
interpreted as ‘suffering in anticipation of suffering’? No parent wants
to see their child suffer.

Consider also the pressure that may be put upon parents to agree in
circumstances where their child has decided for euthanasia and where
they are against it or at least undecided. We do not know yet whether
the protocols will see the necessary professional attestations as to the
child’s capacity to decide occur before parental endorsement or
afterwards. Should the parental agreement come as the last box to be
ticked, imagine the pressure upon those parents to conform? The child
has asked for it, the doctors have agreed that he or she has capacity to
ask for it, will the parents have the strength and internal resources
to stand against it?

Even if the child’s request to die was thwarted by the parents,
there’s nothing to stop the child thereafter rejecting the dominion of
his or her parents and claiming status as an ‘emancipated minor’ – a
provision for an ‘emancipated minor’ to request euthanasia without
reference to his or her parents already exists in Belgian law.

Even if the parental consent were to occur before the capacity tests,
one can still imagine the difficulty parents would face. It would be
the unspoken subtext of the entire treatment process.
And all of this is a situation where the same child is otherwise
under the care and direction of the parents; where he or she can’t yet
vote; probably can’t yet marry, drive a motor vehicle or consume
alcohol.
It is certainly true that some young people develop the capacity for
reason and sound judgment before they reach their majority. It is also
likely that a young person who has endured a long and difficult illness
will have, in some ways, matured more quickly for the experience. But
the question still remains: whose choice ultimately would it be for
death by euthanasia?
It will never be the child’s choice. Nor will it be the parents’
choice. It will remain a decision by the doctor who loads and delivers
the lethal dose. That’s the inescapable reality.
And what of the role of the doctors and nurses? What conversations
happen in the quiet moments when no-one else is around? Will letting a
child patent know that they can always request euthanasia become a
matter of duty? Will a perverse sense of compassion see subtle reminders
conveyed to the child in the wee hours when he or she can’t find sleep?

No matter what the child’s capacity for reason, there is never going
to be a situation where subtle pressure, real or perceived, won’t be
part and parcel of the contract. It’s just the way it is.
It’s merely academic now; but one wonders if, with the benefit of
20-20 hindsight, whether the Belgians would have taken the first
precarious step towards killing its citizens back in 2002 if the concept
of child euthanasia had been foreseen as inevitable.

Is this the end of the depravity or are there other extensions
possible and perhaps as yet unseen? Child euthanasia where the child
lacks capacity to make a decision seems to me to be the logical next
step. This would extend to any minor of any age. After all, parents
retain decision making capacity for minors in all other circumstances
relating to medical interventions, so why are the Belgians pretending
that child capacity and request is necessary at all?

The logical end of this spiral is death on demand without reason or
restraint. The pretense of necessity, in this case, is simply a sham.
The Belgians, like the frog in the pot, are being brought to a simmer in
incremental stages.

What does Wendy Davis’s nomination as a finalist for the 2013 ”Texan of the Year” award tell us?

By Dave AndruskoOver the next three days NRL News Today will include some “year in review” stories. They are fun to write and useful overviews.
I’d like to begin with our benighted opposition which is really
scrambling to find silver linings in a sky filled with dark (i.e.,
life-affirming) clouds.

We talked last week about California (“So who really cares about ‘protecting women’”?)
Their triumph? Guaranteeing that women have greater “access” to
abortion by ensuring that tons more non-physicians can perform certain
first-trimester abortions. (That will certainly enhance women’s safety,
won’t it.) And if that weren’t enough, pass another law guaranteeing
that abortion clinics do not receive the kind of scrutiny they ought to
by exempting them from the more stringent building code standards for
surgery.
Then there is one of the finalists for the Dallas Morning News’ 2013
“Texan of the Year.” Let’s think hard: pro-abortion newspaper that can
never beat up pro-life Republicans enough or celebrate pro-abortion
Democrats sufficiently.

Of course, who else? State Sen. Wendy Davis, now running for governor
to succeed pro-life Rick Perry, whose 11-hour filibuster is the stuff
that legends are made of. (Pretty thin gruel for legends, but times are
tough for the Abortion Establishment.)
While they don’t often explicitly link to Jimmy Stewart’s “Mr. Smith
Goes to Washington,” the parallel drawn in the endless puff pieces is
impossible to miss. And in this case, the connection is more clear than
usual. In a nod to the filibuster maintained by Stewart’s character,
Sen. Jeff Smith, we read of Davis that when this “lone senator stood her
ground, the scene in the chamber resembled a Hollywood script.” Only….

“Except she was not on a movie set.
The Harvard-trained lawyer was in the midst of the sharpest of political
debates. Her oratory galvanized a portion of the Texas electorate that
had been hungering for dynamic leadership. Suddenly many Democrats no
longer felt like they belonged to the party of lost causes. That came
all because Davis seized the moment and microphone, earning her a berth
among finalists for 2013 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year.”

(A quick side note. In another nod to Jeff Smith—a man of
incomparable idealism– we’re told that while ”Her filibuster was
calculated,” according to one political consultant, “it was not built
around statewide ambitions. She did not know how this would transform
her.” Just the fortunate benefit of doing her duty to try to make sure
babies capable of feeling pain can be torn limb from limb.)
Davis leaves the Dallas Morning News’s heart a fluttering. Why? Is it
because she killed the legislation? For a few weeks. Gov. Perry called
another special session and the multiple-faceted bill became law.

Is it because Davis will be the next governor? Maybe, may not. But
that’s almost irrelevant to the authors of gushy fluff pieces like the
one found here.
“Whether her new celebrity helps her win the governorship in 2014 is
another question,” we read. “But this summer’s strategic moment of
defiance energized Texas Democrats and launched a new Texas political
star.”

I come to a different conclusion. The craziness that was the
pro-abortion frenzy at the Texas capitol during the filibuster taught
many pro-lifers an invaluable lesson: At least some pro-abortionists
will stop at virtually nothing, including not-in-the-least-subtle
threats of violence.
We will prevail in the future as we did last summer in Texas: by being civil, persuasive, and, as always, non-violent

Family seeks to move teenager to another facility after judge rules she is brain dead

By Dave Andrusko

Omari
Sealey, left, uncle of Jahi McMath, speaks with attorney Christopher
Dolan before Thursday’s news conference in front of Children’s Hospital
Oakland. Jahi, who has been declared brain dead, remains on life support
at the hospital(Ben Margot / Associated Press / December 19, 2013)

The increasingly bitter battle between the parents of a teenager
declared brain dead and the hospital where her routine tonsillectomy
went terribly awry December 9 continued yesterday when the family
members said they wanted to transfer Jahi McMath to a nursing home they
say is willing to continue her care.

The family’s announcement at a press conference Thursday followed the
Tuesday decision of Alameda Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo. Based
on the independent evaluation of Dr. Paul Fischer that Jahi met the
criteria for brain death, Grillo ruled that the 13-year-old could be
taken off life support.

On Thursday, Jahi’s uncle, Omari Sealey, told reporters, “Yesterday
we spent Christmas together as a family — doing a lot of prayers and
trying to have some fun, hoping for a miracle, and looks like we may
have gotten our miracle. We found out that someone is willing to take
Jahi away from Children’s Hospital to a facility nearby here in the Bay
Area to treat her,” Thursday.”
He added, “So right now, we’re asking Children’s Hospital to work
with us to make that possible,” he said, referring to Children’s
Hospital & Research Center Oakland.
The family did not name the other facility.

Christopher Dolan, the family’s attorney, said that Jahi would need
to have breathing and feeding tubes inserted before she could be moved.

“The most logical people are the ones in the hospital where she’s
sitting who have the ability to do that,” he said, according to the Los
Angeles Times. “If they refuse to do that, and insist upon moving
towards this deadline of pulling the plug, then we’ll just continue to
do what we’ve been doing.”
Children’s Hospital Oakland said it would not go along with the
family’s request. Chief of Pediatrics David Durand said in a statement

“Judge Grillo was very clear on
Tuesday December 24. He ruled Jahi McMath to be deceased and instructed
the hospital to maintain the status quo. Judge Grillo did not authorize
or order any surgical procedures or transfer to another facility.
Children’s Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical
procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical
practice. Children’s Hospital Oakland continues to extend its wishes for
peace and closure to Jahi McMath’s family.”

In a prior ruling Judge Grillo said that the hospital must hold off
on any decisions until December 30. If the family decides to pursue its
case to keep Jahi on the ventilator, the decision will be up to the
California Court of Appeal.

Dolan told reporters Thursday “that if the family was unable to
immediately move Jahi they would appeal the ruling,” according to the
Times’ Matt Stevens. “He said the family’s private health insurance
would cover the cost of her long-term care.”

“They told us there is a bed; they care for children like her all the
time,” Dolan said. “They believe they can provide her with care and
support and treat her as if she’s a living person.”
Jahi underwent the tonsillectomy to address sleep apnea and other
concerns. The operation, at least initially, appeared to have gone well.
But soon afterwards Jahi began bleeding profusely and suffered cardiac
arrest which cut off the flow of oxygen to her brain.

Friday, December 27, 2013

Runs in the Family

By: Haley Kirkpatrick

I am a Birth Mom. I placed my little girl for adoption when I was 15
years old. This was not my first encounter with adoption, though. When I
was a 10 years old, my mom was suddenly facing an unplanned pregnancy
as a divorced, single mom of 5 children. My Mom is a Birth Mom. She
placed my half-brother 14 years ago.

I guess you could say being a Birth Mom runs in the family? Or the
apple doesn’t fall far from the tree? I’m not sure how to describe it,
but I can tell you that it is a very unique situation, a situation that I
am very grateful to be a part of.

When I found out I was expecting a child at 15 years old, I was
terrified, to say the very least. My mind was a complete ball of
questions, worries, and fear. My Mother is the one who calmed all of
that. She never yelled at me for my unplanned pregnancy, she never said
harsh things about the decisions I had made to lead me to my pregnancy,
she only had kind, loving, and concerned remarks for me. I cannot
imagine her handling it any better than she did.

The day I found out, she was the first person I told. She rushed home
from work to find me sobbing in my bed. I remember her rubbing my back,
crying, telling me that everything was going to be okay. We
were going to make it through this. She presented my options to me,
adoption, parenting, or abortion. She never pushed any of these options
on me; she presented them all with the same love and care and let me be
the one to make the decision. She never ever forced adoption on me, but I
can say that without her example, I probably never would have decided
on adoption.

I watched my Mother give birth to a beautiful little boy. A little
boy that I knew I would not call my Brother. She lovingly placed him in
the arms of another woman and it was an amazing thing to be a part of.
My mom always kept things so positive during her pregnancy. She simply
told us that a family was unable to have a baby, so she was using her
belly to grow one for them.

I took that mentality into my adoption experience. Yes, I knew this
was MY child, but once I had selected a family, I really did see this as
their baby. It did not make my pain any less, but I knew that this is
where she belonged. My Mom was by my side throughout my entire adoption
journey. She went to every appointment, every meeting with my social
worker, all of it. She was my saving grace. But, the thing I appreciate
the most about my Mother's support was that she never once sugar coated
what I was about to go through. She told me from the moment that I
decided to make an adopt ion plan, that it would be the hardest thing I
ever did. She told me about the pain, about the loss, about the life
long grief I would feel, but I went ahead anyway, and she completely
supported that.
I feel as though I had an advantage to some expectant parents who
decide to place. I went into placement ready, ready for the pain. My mom
had prepared me and I knew that it was not going to be easy. Now, as a
mother myself, I cannot imagine how my mom must have felt watching me
sign those papers. I know that every inch of her must have been hurting.
I could never watch my daughter go through something that I know would
cause her so much hurt, but my mom did…she put her feelings aside and
allowed me to make this decision completely on my own. A decision that
not only broke her daughter’s heart, but that took away her first
Grandbaby.

My Mother is my super hero and I will never be able to thank her
enough for her amazing leading example in my life. Our adoption journeys
have been completely different, but knowing that I have her there on
the bad days, there to comfort me and completely understand how I feel,
what more could I ask for?